Covid-19

[Johnsond]

Just now, Mull said:

 

Yeah, I understand your point Andy, I don’t see why they are keeping these people alive just now? When it’s obviously depriving your daughter from being educated on how to keep them alive.🤷‍♂️

 

Very very poor in every way. 

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Mull said:

 

Yeah, I understand your point Andy, I don’t see why they are keeping these people alive just now? When it’s obviously depriving your daughter from being educated on how to keep them alive.🤷‍♂️

 

We're destroying the lives of our children for the sake of the ones who have already lived theirs. 

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Johnsond said:

Very very poor in every way. 

Its the best retort you could expect from someone who votes SNP.  

 

The irony is a whole generation of potential Doctors chosen (altruistic) career paths could be on the rocks and unable to care for the lives of everyone, not just the very old. 

[Mull]

 
The irony is a whole generation of potential Doctors chosen (altruistic) career paths could be on the rocks and unable to care for the lives of everyone, not just the very old. 

COVID is a severe blip on the planet Andy, as were other plagues and world wars, it’s tough times, just ask Boris. So, someone studying to be a doctor at the moment is now f***ed?? Hahaha, you’re a wee drama queen Andy boy, along with your mates on here.

[Mesterh]

5 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

I take your point, but given that the risk of severe illness and death is highest amongst those who are oldest and most unwell, is it really justifiable to lock away the rest of us too? Is there not an ethical dilemma there also? 

 

Also, could it be argued that the ethical implications of targeted lockdowns are not as serious as the ethical implications of crippling our economy, bankrupting our government and knackering the educational and social development of our children? 

 

The argument of fairness goes both ways. Is it fair to seriously restrict the liberty of a person who is at very low risk of complications relating to covid? How is this better than a targeted approach? 

Well for one we need to define who is vulnerable, that list could be very long if you start taking long covid victims into account and if you do how do you identify them for a start. If we are protecting them by locking them away then we have to lock away the people they live with and their careers, that's going to be a hell of a lot of people not going to work, not going to school not going anywhere. Who atm is locked away, I'm not you're not and a good proportion of the UK aren't confined to their house atm so there is no ethical dilemma there.

 

As we all lockdowns are bad for the reasons you describe but surely this has been weighed up against the outcome if there wasn't lockdowns by the people who specialise in economics and health care, we aren't qualified to make those decisions. 

 

As it's already been mentioned it's not all about the numbers of people who die of covid it's the impact it would have if huge numbers of people where infected at the same time.

 

None of us here are qualified to make these decisions, yes we can speculate and debate them but really none of us have a clue on the best course to take for the greater good. 

 

I wouldn't trust the advice from half the people on here on how to fell an elderberry in my back garden and it's an arb forum.

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Mull said:

 

 

COVID is a severe blip on the planet Andy, as were other plagues and world wars, it’s tough times, just ask Boris. So, someone studying to be a doctor at the moment is now f***ed?? Hahaha, you’re a wee drama queen Andy boy, along with your mates on here.

 

 

One day you can say that to my face and Im looking forward to that.  

[Mull]

One day you can say that to my face and Im looking forward to that. [emoji4] 

Which bit?[emoji848][emoji1]

[trigger_andy]

1 minute ago, Mesterh said:

 

I wouldn't trust the advice from half the people on here on how to fell an elderberry in my back garden and it's an arb forum.

 I like that one.

[Mull]

Very very poor in every way. 

Great response[emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]

[Johnsond]

5 minutes ago, Mesterh said:

Well for one we need to define who is vulnerable, that list could be very long if you start taking long covid victims into account and if you do how do you identify them for a start. If we are protecting them by locking them away then we have to lock away the people they live with and their careers, that's going to be a hell of a lot of people not going to work, not going to school not going anywhere. Who atm is locked away, I'm not you're not and a good proportion of the UK aren't confined to their house atm so there is no ethical dilemma there.

 

As we all lockdowns are bad for the reasons you describe but surely this has been weighed up against the outcome if there wasn't lockdowns by the people who specialise in economics and health care, we aren't qualified to make those decisions. 

 

As it's already been mentioned it's not all about the numbers of people who die of covid it's the impact it would have if huge numbers of people where infected at the same time.

 

None of us here are qualified to make these decisions, yes we can speculate and debate them but really none of us have a clue on the best course to take for the greater good. 

 

I wouldn't trust the advice from half the people on here on how to fell an elderberry in my back garden and it's an arb forum.

There was no opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons due to the absolute hysteria from the very start of this and the demands for action from politicians whom seemed hell bent on trying to outdo each other in the severity of restrictions scale. The comments ref who’s locked up now ie you aren’t etc is totally ignoring all the evidence that is starting to appear finally ref the damage this is causing.